Summary
The Court upheld Tata Motors’ disqualification for offering an operating range under standard testing conditions instead of the required actual conditions. It restored BEST’s award to EVEY: the corrected undertaking was a document for the successful bidder, outside the mandatory technical submissions, and accepting its correction did not establish favouritism. Public interest and the cost of disrupting the ongoing contract also weighed against interference.
Issues
- Whether Tata Motors complied with the essential operating-range requirement.
- Whether permitting EVEY to correct Annexure Y after technical bids opened invalidated its bid.
- Whether the High Court should have interfered with the award at the instance of a disqualified bidder in these circumstances.
Provisions considered
- Article 226, Constitution of IndiaJudicial review of public tenders requires restraint, particularly on technical and commercial matters, and attention to public interest, fairness and the financial consequences of intervention. (¶¶ 48, 49, 52, 53, 54)
- Schedule IX, section 2, clauses 3.5(e) and 12; Schedule II, clause 5.1.1; Schedule I, clause 16, BEST electric-bus tender, 2022The actual-condition range requirement was essential. Annexure Y was for the successful bidder rather than a mandatory technical submission, so the prohibition on revising technical-bid documents did not bar its correction. (¶¶ 7, 13, 23, 41, 49, 50, 51)
Held
- The requirement was a 200-kilometre uninterrupted operating range on a single charge in actual conditions with the stipulated state of charge. Tata Motors’ reliance on standard AIS 040 testing conditions departed from that material requirement, and its disqualification was proper. (¶¶ 7, 9, 11, 49)
- Annexure Y was required from the successful bidder and did not appear in the list of mandatory technical submissions. Clause 16’s restriction on later correction applied to documents required in the technical bid; it did not extend to this undertaking. BEST could accept EVEY’s revised Annexure Y correcting the earlier clerical error without rendering its entire bid unlawful or proving favouritism. (¶¶ 13, 41, 50, 51)
- After finding Tata Motors non-responsive, the High Court should not, in this private-rights writ petition, have investigated EVEY’s eligibility in the manner it did. The Court distinguished that setting from public-interest proceedings and applied the caution against granting tender relief at the instance of a party that itself failed the criteria. (¶¶ 47, 49)
- Tender review remains available for clear arbitrariness, irrationality, mala fides or bias, but courts must respect their limits in technical and commercial assessment. Intervention must serve the larger public interest. Restarting a contract already under performance could cause substantial delay and public expense, which were relevant considerations here. (¶¶ 48, 52, 53, 54)
- Tata Motors’ appeal was dismissed. EVEY’s and BEST’s appeals were allowed to the extent of setting aside the High Court’s interference with EVEY’s award and its provision for a fresh tender. No costs were ordered and pending applications were disposed of. (¶¶ 55, 56, 57, 58)
Result
Tata Motors’ appeal dismissed. EVEY’s and BEST’s appeals allowed to the stated extent; High Court interference with acceptance of EVEY’s tender and provision for re-tendering set aside. No costs; pending applications disposed of.